Posted
by
CowboyNeal
on Thursday May 04, 2006 @06:16PM
from the what-would-superman-do dept.

Nerd_52637 writes "Yesterday, Marvel Comics released the first in its miniseries Civil War, which can only be described as a gutsy comic-book series focusing on the whole debate over homeland security and tighter government controls in the name of public safety.
The seven-issue series once again puts superheroes right back in the thick of real-world news, just as DC Comics has Batman battling al-Qaeda in a soon-to-appear comic and Marvel's X-Men continue to explore themes of public intolerance and discrimination.
In Civil War, hero is pitted against hero in the choice of whether or not to side with the government, as issues ranging from a Guantanamo-like prison camp for superheroes, embedded reporters and the power of media all play in the mix as Superheroes are ordered to register as human WMDs or be branded fugitives."

Hmmm... I disagree. While both awesome pieces of work, neither is really dealing with the issues of government control in the same way, if at all.

For one, the conspiracy in Watchmen is non-governmental: It's actually an exceedingly liberal private citizen (Adrian/Ozymandias) who is controlling public opinion and worldview. The government plays a strang side-role in this; they are environment, not actor.

And Astro City: Confession, while one of my all-time favorite comics, is really dealing with public opinion and its manipulation by authority in a much softer, more human-focused way.

Maybe a better example would be Frank Miller's Martha Washington books, or Elektra: Assassin. Still, I don't think anything out there invalidates this project.

the conspiracy in Watchmen is non-governmental: It's actually an exceedingly liberal private citizen (Adrian/Ozymandias) who is controlling public opinion and worldview.

I respectfully submit that when a person starts to think that they can cure all humanity's ills by themselves, that they are the only enlightened leader capable of doing so, and that the end justifies the means, even if the means is killing millions, that that person has no right to any political classification but Fascist.

If they were to proclaim it was in service of the greater good, of which they are merely the executive officer, then they might make a claim to the classification of Communist (specifically a Marxist-Leninist, 'vanguard of the proletariat' and all that).

In no way can it be claimed they are a liberal, not even in the distorted US meaning of the word.

This message brought to you by your local Political Education Officer.

1980-1981, as I recall. It's remained a consistent reference ever since because the future is never in the present. So, though the inciting details have changed this could lead to the DoFP events as easily as assassinating Senator Robert Kelly (who, by the way, went mutant neutral/pro a while back).

As a card-carrying member of Amnesty International (AI), I was shocked when AI accused Washington of running a Soviet-style gulag. I burned my AI membership card and flushed the ashes down the toilet. After all, AI could not provide any evidence supporting the outrageous claims, and using hyperbole to support human rights damages AI's credibility and the ultimate mission of rescuing victims of brutal (often Chinese) human-rights abuses.

Then, last month, I read about the stunning news report by the "Washington Post" [belleville.com]. It reported on CIA-gate: the CIA, with the full approval of the president, has been running a network of secret prisons where enemies of the American nation are interrogated. Although this network is nowhere near the status of the Soviet gulag, the network does put tremendous credibility in the original accusations by AI.

At times like these, we need a Captain America to fight for truth, justice, and Western values. A network of secret prisons grossly violates the most sacred of Western values.

I'm sorry but if your default position was to [wikipedia.org] believe [wikipedia.org] the [wikipedia.org] CIA [wikipedia.org] and not Amnesty International [amnesty.org] then it's going to take more than superheroes to help you.

Of course though secret prisons/cell-blocks/wings for intelligence work have been used for about as long as there have been Nation-States and Intelligence operations, so what the CIA is doing isn't anything really new except for the fact that they shuffle people around in other countries.When one operates as a spy or irregular military operative traditionally they don't have near the same rights or protections as a uniformed military or diplomatic operative. But now things are different in terms of the medi

Captain Canuck has been sitting back and watching it all unfold with a sort of morbid fascination. Captain America in the mean time is toying with moving North -- he always did enjoy blasting down a large snow covered hill on that shield when nobody was looking.

As a card-carrying member of Amnesty International
(AI), I was shocked when AI accused Washington of running
a Soviet-style gulag.

It surprises me that a "card-carrying member" of AI wouldn't
already have heard the extensive proof of our network
of secret prisons when the story finally hit the mainstream
news... Indy media such as Democracy Now have covered the topic
every few months since 2004!

And it's still enjoyable today when Watchmen just makes one depressed with its 1980s "the end is nigh" fearmongering.

I agree, that '80s stuff is so dated, I can't believe anyone would think it has any relevance to modern events. Most political commentary really has no relevence beyond a few months from publication date, so I don't understand why anyone would waste their time writing or reading it.

I'd write more, but I'm meeting a friend to see V for Vendetta in a few minutes.

He was making a joke. The recent movie V for Vendetta is, with a few tweaks to make nods to current events, based on a comic from the 80s by, I think, the same author as Watchmen, the "dated" material being referred to.

Yes they are both graphic novels by Alan Moore.I agree that V for Vendetta (although one could consider it fear mongering) is absolutely relevant today, just as it was when it was written.I suppose OP might consider 1984 to be outdated as well, but I believe the basic story of a government exerting total and brutal control over the population is a timeless warning message.

I recently read the Watchmen again. It nicely captured the sense of impending nuclear holocaust that was a staple of the Cold War era. The Cold War ended along with the Soviet Union back in '91.

In the Watchmen the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan and threatens Pakistan, which nearly provokes World War III. Nowadays we invade Afghanistan and Iran, and no one does anything except quietly complain about American imperialism. It just isn't the same without another nuclear superpower.

Not just that, but in the eighties the Avengers had this as a recurring story element. Specifically it was about government regulation of the Avengers, and if I recall correctly, they had some government regulator guy who was always breathing down their neck. Flat-top guy with sunglasses.

Also, that was the same guy ( I'm pretty sure ) that tried to screw Captain America out of his identity, which again is pretty much the same storyline.

The sweet, red-headed fellow you're talking about was Avengers liaison, Henry Peter Gyrich who, by the way, became something of a "nice" guy during the last run of Avengers leading up to the infamous (and annoying) "Avengers Disassembled" storyline. One of his "best" moments was when he forced The Falcon onto the Avengers because he felt that they didn't have enough minority representation (and, to be fair, they didn't). It was a pretty interesting storyline considering the uproar that Affirmative Action has caused over the years.

"I don't believe there to be any hard evidence that prisoners are mistreated at Guantanamo;"

I don't know what you mean by "hard" evidence but we know for sure people have been waterboarded there and that's classified as torture. People have also been subjected to food and sleep deprivation, extremes of temprature, and being strapped in uncomfortable positions for extended periods in specially built devices. Finally people have been injected with various drugs.

Those have all been admitted to by the military itself. Not just allegations by prisoners. The military feels like those actions are not torture. But they again the military also feels like these human beings do not deserve all the rights specified under the UN human rights charter or the geneva conventions.

"the greatest complaint is that they are tried before a military tribunal instead of a civilian one (could be wrong, I hardly follow the issue)."

No the greatest complaint is that people have been severly tortured for extended periods of time. Those complaints are from people who were eventually let go. Perhaps you should follow the issue more closely. It's your country after all and you are somewhat responsible for what it does.

Having said that who know what's going there? It's not like any of us are allowed visits and even the red cross has to ask permission and schedule a visit. Nobody is stupid enough to torture people in front of visiting congressmen and red cross. They probably clean up for those visits.

Finally when the red cross asked to interview prisoners privately they were refused. The military would not allow it. Take that for what it's worth. I remember Saddam didn't want his scientists interviewed privately by the weapons inspectors before the war too.

You don't get it both ways. They are either soldiers, or they are criminals. If they are criminals, then they get trials in front of a judge. If they are soldiers, then they get POW status and Geneva Convention protection. There ain't no third category except in the minds of people who want to establish a class of subhumans that have not been endowed by their creator with any inherent and inalienable rights; (among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

Wrong. Read it in the text (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm):A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Part

Not if they are operaitng IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY AT THE TIME - they are not acting as spies then!

if you as an invader are attacked by citizens with guns, then you have to treat any subsequent prisoners as POWS - in fact any and ALL prisoners have to be treated as POWS under article 4 until proven otherwise

"illegial combatants" is a term made up by the current administration that doesnt even make sense...

actually, there is a third category of persons beyond "lawful enemy combatant" and "citizen". that is the "unlawful enemy combatant". this is a special case where the person was engaged in hostile war actions against the enemy, but does not meet the requirments of being a POW (because they engaged in military acts unlawfully as defined by article 4 of geneva convention iii).they aern't civliians because they engaged in war acts and they aren't awarded geneva protections as a POW because they didn't meet the

The first tribunal was held in November 2004, a full three years after the first detainees were captured. (To be fair, the tribunals were delayed by about four months due to their legal statis being challenged in the US courts.)

The Geneva Convention doesn't state how long you have to wait to get your tribunal, though the US has laws against indefinite detention without trial. Nevertheless, it does state that you should be afforded all of the righ

Unless you are ready to deny that they are human beings you still can't legally hold them without charges or trials and you certainly can't torture them.The universal declaration of human rights covers all humans beings no matter what acts they may have comitted or how the president of the united states refers to them.

The only defense Bush has left is to redefine torture, which he as done.

"article 5 of GC iii decalres that if the status of an individual is in question (i.e. not a lawful enemy combatant and

they aern't civliians because they engaged in war acts and they aren't awarded geneva protections as a POW because they didn't meet the standard defined in the geneva convention (specifically, they fought like terrorists).

You appear to be under the mistaken belief that the people in Camp Delta were all captured in combat against US forces in Afghanistan or Iraq. Unfortunately, that is completely false. Some were; many were not.

In fact, the detainees include people like Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil el-Banna wh

The only place where the word "unlawful" appears in the third Geneva Convention is the sentence

"Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention.".

The word "lawful" doesn't appear at all. The definitions you're talking about are prefaced with

"Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:"

The text relevant to those who don't fall under any of the POW categories is as follows:

Part I. General Provisions

...

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

"Good lord, aside from the drug-injection allegation, some of the things you listed are positively cozy compared to special forces training."I hope you are not telling me it's OK for the army to abduct me and force me to go through the special forces training.

"Not just in the U.S. but in many nations. The problem is that everyone has their own definition of torture."

Sure. The UN has defined torture in one way, the US laws have defined torture one way, this administration has defined torture another way. It

I don't believe there to be any hard evidence that prisoners are mistreated at Guantanamo; the greatest complaint is that they are tried before a military tribunal instead of a civilian one (could be wrong, I hardly follow the issue).

The feeding pipe was thick, thicker than my nostril, and would not go in. Blood came gushing out of my nose and tears down my cheeks, but they kept pushing until the cartilages cracked. I guess I would h

General Miller was sent from Guantanamo to oversee the Abu Ghraib prison system before the scandal hit; he was credited with finding ways of interrogation at Guantanamo and was asked to do the same at Abu Ghraib. Clearly there's a connection.That's also along with 2 ex-Guantanamo employees who wrote books on their experiences, interviews with former Guantanamo detainees and FBI reports of abuse. Heck, the Department of Defense had to concede of instances of inappropriate actions like a female guard sitting

Comics in general and Marvel in particular have had a long tradition in embracing social issues - witness the classic Marvel comic series that decried on McCarthyism. This one is interesting because they aren't really taking sides.

Of course, many cartoons these days are overtly political (Southpark, American Dad, Boondocks) - at least Marvel tries hard to let the readers make up their own minds and explore the issue themselves.

For that matter, what effect would 'registration' have? How would having a list of 'Human WMDs' enhance your safety? It's like a gun registry. It only helps you when you feel the need to collect them from the law-abiding group who registered them according to the laws. The criminals aren't going to tell you about them. Besides, if you know enough to go after them for being a unregistered WMD, can't the government note that down in the list that way?GURPs superheroes had a service where you could regist

The issue of regular humans attempting to contorl the behaviour of superheroes has been covered dozens of times over the past 40 years, very prominently in one of the most popluar comic series of all time, the X-Men.

From TFA: "In the first issue of Civil War, he brilliantly folds an entire dissertation on security into one succinct dialogue bubble by saying: "Don't play politics with me, lady. Superheroes need to stay above that stuff or Washington starts telling us who the supervillains are."

I would hardly call those two sentences brilliant, or even succinct for that matter. In fact, the third sentence does not even seem grammatically correct (though I could be wrong; English is my third language).

I would hardly call those two sentences brilliant, or even succinct for that matter. In fact, the third sentence does not even seem grammatically correct (though I could be wrong; English is my third language).

When you can crush a man with your pinky finger or shoot lasers from your eyes... No one is going to tell you what they think your grammar skills.

All very good, but enlightening a generation far too young to do anything. In another 15 years kids who experience political intelligence and develop the ability to weigh up complex social debates will be able to make a difference to the world. If one still exists. The problem is not our children, its the fucking clueless, apathetic, greedy and lazy adults that grew up on a diet of might-is-right Hollywood poison for the last two decades. How do you re-educate people who live in denial while other peoples k

Uh huh. And what would you say is the target demographic -- and the average age -- of today's comic book reader?

Why don't you tell us? I for one have no clue. I sort of understand the 80s were a silver age of comics, which would sugest that anyone who liked them then and still buys them would be in their mid 30s. But I don't have a clue... to me a comic book was something one bought as a kid as light reading on a long road trip... while certainly entertaining in order to get a full story one had to buy t

There is, for instance, one accident where a group of novice superheroes gets in over its head, leading to the death of a schoolyard full of children.

The politicians are concerned about public safety. So Congress passes a bill forcing all superheroes to register with the government as human weapons of mass destruction, and to work, in effect, for Washington. Superheroes who don't comply will themselves be branded fugitives.

Geez, weren't the X-men already hiding from the government for being dangerous?

Try something more intelligent, people. Talk about the ISPs snooping on you, about the RIAA lobbying the congress, about the Patriot Act, DRM, DMCA and all that stuff that's being shoved down our throats.

But do it in the near future, present a fear-driven country, where all civil liberties are ALREADY lost. We want to see people being arrested for having analog TV's! For copying music in authorized formats! For using encryption in their e-mails! We want Big Brother! (in the comics, that is)

Try something more intelligent, people. Talk about the ISPs snooping on you, about the RIAA lobbying the congress, about the Patriot Act, DRM, DMCA and all that stuff that's being shoved down our throats.
But do it in the near future, present a fear-driven country, where all civil liberties are ALREADY lost. We want to see people being arrested for having analog TV's! For copying music in authorized formats! For using encryption in their e-mails! We want Big Brother! (in the comics, that is)

I mean, think about it. Some guy with super powers that could bag any government agency including its agents anytime and twice on Sunday, and he's still allowed to have a secret identity, lead a normal life and only put on his spandex to hunt down some bad guys?

In reality, he'd have been approached by the feds ages ago and offered the choice to either work for them or, more likely, some dirt would've been dumped on him to have the media label him the greatest threat to humanity since Saddam, then he'd been hunted down 'til he's dead.

Face it. Government does NOT like power that isn't in its hands and under its control.

In reality, he'd have been approached by the feds ages ago and offered the choice to either work for them or, more likely, some dirt would've been dumped on him to have the media label him the greatest threat to humanity since Saddam, then he'd been hunted down 'til he's dead.

It happened to Batman and Superman. Now mind you the President of the United States at the time was Lex Luthor but with Batman he was going after Bruce Wayne and accidently hired the only person who knew that he was a super hero.

In reality, the cops would probably be shooting at Spiderman instead of the villain, then blame Spidey for the villain's existance.Nobody may save the day except for the authorized security forces. For the simple reason that if one man can save the day, and he decides to run for any political office, he has it. Hands down. I know, Schwarzenegger is a bad example, he would have won against Davis even without his popularity, but it sure as hell helped him into office.

How long did we wait for the third installment of DK Strikes Again - all the time hearing that the delay had nothing to do with the concurrent events following September 11 - all to bizarre effect - something that could have been bigger and better than DK Returns and fell to the earth with a muffled thud.

To all you people rushing to say "Obscure comic company X did this in 1983 maaaan!"... just because some comic you read dealt with the issue of corrupt government before is not the same thing. This particular government is QUITE a particular government, and George Bush is named as the president in this Marvel series (according to TFA), which makes this a pretty specific attack on this very specific post-9/11 presidency and I think that makes this quite noteworthy. This isn't just about the fiction of it.

To all you people rushing to say "Obscure comic company X did this in 1983 maaaan!"... just because some comic you read dealt with the issue of corrupt government before is not the same thing. This particular government is QUITE a particular government, and George Bush is named as the president in this Marvel series (according to TFA), which makes this a pretty specific attack on this very specific post-9/11 presidency and I think that makes this quite noteworthy. This isn't just about the fiction of it.

Sure it's been done in the X-Men back and forth but in the Marvel Universe there's just too many uber-powerful characters to require Registration.

Scarlet Witch registers, ok cool. So the government now has her on file as a human (or humanoid really for the non human types as well) WMD. That's great. What the fuck does that do to stop a character, like old Scarlet, from going apeshit and destroying the entire fucking universe?

It's already technically done as well in another sense: villians. Example, take Thanos right. Villian, bad guy. Automatically you consider him a humanoid WMD right. Again same situation. Having him on file, does jack and or shit. So Uncle Sam keeps him on file, hell we'll go one step further, keeps GPS and the whole schebang on him 24/7. Yea when he gets a huge powerup like the Infinite Gauntlet, being able to scramble your military ain't shit. The only benefit it would have is if they notified heroes of such things apon villians. But it's not, since they are only doing Hero registration.

Either way it's somewhat of an old storyline that while a good one, seems to be a publicity stunt. Considering the current state of America, we're pretty unhappy with our government, our president and basically how restricted life has become. Leave it to Marvel to sellout for the all mighty $

Scarlet Witch registers, ok cool. So the government now has her on file as a human (or humanoid really for the non human types as well) WMD. That's great. What the fuck does that do to stop a character, like old Scarlet, from going apeshit and destroying the entire fucking universe?

Actually, she did go apeshit and she did warp the reality at large. According to Marvel that this does play a role in this storyline but I don't know how because I haven't read either storyline.

I know, that's why I mentioned her specifically. She's one of the handful of characters who have the power or ability to royally fuck up the universe, at a whim if deemed nesscary. It also opens the door to the whole entire Universe story arcs which half the time suck but thats another issue completely. Either way, characters like her make no sense to register for such a thing, even the government in the comics isn't quick enough or powerful enough to stop such a character from fubaring reality.

If you aren't an avid comic reader or casual fan, sure you probably find it awesome. Every major world issue has been explored ten times over in comics since well, the creation of comics. X-Men as mentioned by others, has covered most of them, usually racial hate and intolerance. It's nothing new. At best Marvel will hit two markets with this; people who are either casual andor casual readers to people who hear/see/learn about this story arc specifically and get all into it cause its either controversial or

The City of Heroes [cityofheroes.com] backstory timeline has covered a few similar events, notably the Might for Right Act [cityofheroes.com], which "proclaimed super-powered individuals and vigilante heroes a valuable national resource subject to draft without notice into the service of the United States government."

No... I'm not cynical about all my favorite comics, movies etc. being ruined by politically-correct mediocrity...;)

Have you even read any comic books lately? Let me tell you what has just gone on recently. Batman has had his mind erased by other superheros because he found out that Zatanna was presured into erasing the minds of villians by other super heroes. I just read a comic book where Giant Man is an abusive @sshole and sprays his wife (Wasp) wit

Stan had nothing to do with Venom, which was a character created over a decade after he got out of the creative side of Marvel comics. He didn't even have anything to do with the black suit of Spider-Man's that was Venom's origin - that was Jim Shooter trying to change everything that Stan, Jack and Steve had created, and make Marvel his own.